Re-reading this thread, in addition to the original post I think this might be part of the confusion here. I hadn’t noticed this, but it does makes it sound like the SGB is hand picking the members but that’s not the case. “Candidates” sounds like there’s some sort of judgement as to whether someone can be on the committee but that’s also not the case as far as I understand it. I don’t think @breckbaldwin meant to imply that, but I just want to make sure that’s totally clear. As far as I’m aware anyone who cares enough to volunteer for this can participate!
Given the confusion there understandably seems to be I think we should retire this thread and start a new one with the clarifications incorporated (@anon75146577 and @lauren are right the the original language hasn’t been changed yet, just clarifications made in comments and I think there are other suggestions that they and others have made that can be incorporated).
@jonah Thanks for engaging on this topic. I don’t want to extend the thread anywhere new but just want to emphasize a few points that I believe are in line with some of the concerns brought up by @anon75146577 and @lauren.
I believe that we’re all in agreement that volunteering for the project should be not only welcomed but also encouraged and celebrated. The challenge is whether or not certain volunteers are officially sanctioned by the SBC.
Without any official sanction or endorsement volunteers are free to self organize and, as you said, there aren’t many reasons for anyone in the community to obstruct those efforts. Once any volunteer effort is sanctioned, however, then I think it’s fair to ask about procedures, not only to clarify the scope of such a sanction but also to ensure that everyone in the community has a fair chance to participate in the effort or create their own.
There are also some subtler political issues, especially around fundraising. For example the difference between receiving unrequested funding from a company deemed unethical by many in the community verses the SGB actively working with such a company. Or confusion from funders between funding a group associated with Stan verses the Stan project itself.
I myself am particularly cognizant of these concerns because I occasionally speak with members of the community who have confused non-SGB efforts, especially Columbia efforts, with official SGB efforts and based their participation/interaction/etc on the assumption they were in fact working with the SGB. This also festers frustration from those who come away thinking that the only way to contact/work with the SGB is to work with these non-SGB efforts and feel excluded without those contacts.
My earlier comment was motivated by the specific language of the proposal which to me read not only as the SGB sanctioning the committee but also the committee being a part of the SGB itself. The very short time frame for the solicitation of volunteers may also have come across as a product of an opaque, non-open process.
Anyways I’ll move any further discussion over to a few thread if I see one pop up. Thanks!
Thanks Michael, I thought your reaction and your questions about this were totally reasonable given the confusion in the initial communication. I tried to convey that but sorry if it came across like I was directing any comments about tone at you. I wasn’t. And thanks for these additional comments. I think I agree with you on pretty much all of it!
Sorry for the confusion – I personally didn’t perceive any poor tone in your response but given the discussion that followed I just wanted to try to emphasize the points where I think we were actually all in agreement.
The Stan Governing Body (SGB) has been carefully reading this thread and we thank every and each of the suggestions made to Breck’s proposal.
However, this conversation took an unhealthy turn and we believe it is wise to wrap up this thread. Please do not interpret us closing this thread as shutting down conversation, on the contrary, we think it would be good to start a new conversation and assess the viability of a revised proposal.
On behalf of the SGB, I would like to clarify some points that we completely understand are murky. We hope we’re summarizing and interpreting your comments as accurately as possible:
This committee appears to duplicate many of the tasks the SGB has been elected to execute on . This is a very valid concern and the SGB needs to revise the suggestions in order to remove the goals that uniquely pertain to the SGB’s responsibilities.
This committee appears to be an SGB initiative and it is unclear what the main motivation is. This committee is definitely not an SGB initiative but we understand the language in the proposal makes it look like one. This proposal was brought to the attention of the SGB by Abbas, Breck, Eren and Simon. Given the large scope of the proposal the SGB wanted to make sure this committee was abiding to the principles of the community (CoC, Equality and Diversity if seeking members, little disruption to core developers and most importantly reporting on an agreed frequency to assess the viability of this project).
Membership is unclear. We completely agree on this point given the deadline proposed and the wording around this needs to be clearer to ensure a transparent process for people seeking to volunteer, respect principles of inclusion and we think. It would be useful to describe what archetypes are actually needed.
Fundraise: This item also needs further clarity because as suggested, funders need to know whether they are funding Stan (the project) or particular groups.
The scope of the project is rather large, perhaps starting with the user-focused goals will be most pertinent.
Additionally, there are general miscellaneous items that apply to this and other community-led proposals.
We, the SGB, do not see ourselves as having the authority to fully manage groups like the ones proposed here. Except that we require from them abiding to our Code of Conduct and make sure activities are consistent with the legal requirements outlined by NumFOCUS.
That said, the SGB does have the authority to develop and implement strategies to improve the inclusion and diversity at all levels of the Stan project and if particular communities are counterproductive to this goal, the SGB can intervene.
We reiterate that this is the type of no-strings-attached fundraising anyone can do, and that we see value in having one or multiple places for users to identify mutual areas of interest that might be able to combine into a specific feature-driven funding program.
Any funds should abide by NumFOCUS policies and funds raised via NumFOCUS are reported annually, including large individual donations (see the latest report as an example), and this is the reason why we ask people who are considering fundraising activities to do it via NumFOCUS (this is, for instance, how StanCon has done fundraising in the past to ensure transparency).
We do value everyone’s feedback but when conversations take a bad turn, we ask community members to please be kind to proposals and people. Stan is a growing community and we need to be more deliberate in our actions to make sure people do feel welcome and will receive polite candid feedback.